Latest / Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast / CT - Size Matters

Transcript

CT - Size Matters · Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast

• 0:03
  Are we awake? We are not sure are we lack?
• 0:15
  Yes, we are. Well, good morning, good evening
• 0:25
  or good afternoon, wherever you are, whatever you do.
• 0:28
  A lot of things happening in the world.
• 0:29
  Today most of them are far beyond our control.
• 0:32
  You might say, perhaps it's time we took a pause and thought
• 0:36
  about life thought about the laws of gravity Constitution
• 0:40
  Anti-Federalists, the proposed legislature and Property.
• 0:47
  Don't touch that dial. Just hear me out for a little
• 0:49
  while. The last week we saw that Brutus
• 0:54
  was adamant that not having a Bill of Rights in the
• 0:58
  Constitution was in his view. A fatal flaw it, as I said will
• 1:05
  become the issue when you're dealing with the
• 1:08
  Anti-Federalists and the proposed Constitution, this lack
• 1:12
  of a Bill of Rights. All are, everything else is
• 1:17
  discussable at least, but that lack of Bill of Rights is
• 1:21
  unpardonable and of course they would push to get the Bill of
• 1:25
  Rights in there. The first ten amendments would
• 1:28
  become the Bill of Rights. Let me caveat that the first 10.
• 1:33
  Amendments passed would become the Bill of Rights.
• 1:35
  So we're actually 13 proposed. One of those would not actually
• 1:41
  be ratified until 1992 and On the 27th Amendment.
• 1:45
  So there are some flex room in there, but the precious Bill of
• 1:51
  Rights that we have came about because of the Anti-Federalists
• 1:54
  position. This however is not, the end of
• 1:58
  Brutus, has problems with the proposed Constitution.
• 2:03
  He has major problems with the legislature as proposed.
• 2:10
  It's there are some things that he likes in the Constitution.
• 2:15
  He doesn't say what they are and he reminds us that they are
• 2:19
  either. relatively unimportant, or Their appearance is better
• 2:26
  than what they really are. He doesn't like them, but he's
• 2:29
  willing to acknowledge the fact that there may be some positives
• 2:33
  in this. The idea in general might be
• 2:35
  good. But this way of going about it
• 2:39
  is flawed. now I've said before that the difference between the
• 2:43
  Federalists and the Anti-Federalists is one of
• 2:45
  vision looking forward, the Federalists seem to grasp the
• 2:50
  future the Anti-Federalists for whatever reason do not Brutus in
• 2:57
  this third letter that he writes.
• 3:01
  Has some serious issues. And some of these issues you're
• 3:05
  going to agree with one of them. I do not agree with will see
• 3:09
  that here right now Brutus. Takes a look at the legislature.
• 3:15
  I was proposed and he flat-out does not like the idea of the
• 3:20
  Senate, not that he doesn't like having a senate.
• 3:23
  He likes that idea. What he doesn't like, is the
• 3:28
  unfairness with which the Senate is composed.
• 3:32
  What do I mean? If you recall back in the
• 3:34
  convention, the the Great Compromise is what ended up with
• 3:40
  this balanced system, where the House of Representatives, the
• 3:43
  Congress, Is elected directly by the people, the Senate was to be
• 3:48
  appointed by the state's themselves and it was to be even
• 3:55
  amongst all the states. Every state was to have the same
• 3:57
  representation that was the Compromise because otherwise the
• 4:00
  small states felt like they would just be snowed under by
• 4:03
  the big States. And in fact, at one point, state
• 4:07
  of Delaware threatened to leave the convention and begin
• 4:12
  negotiations with foreign countries over this compromise,
• 4:16
  if they didn't get equal representation in the Senate,
• 4:20
  Now Brutus as far as we know was not there.
• 4:23
  He was not at the convention and consequently, he Was not
• 4:30
  probably aware of what went on in that in that compromised by
• 4:36
  the way. Complete aside, I heard an
• 4:38
  interesting Theory last week that the writer of Brutus and
• 4:43
  remember we've we've talked about who what was that wrote
• 4:47
  this before? Melanchthon Smith is the is the
• 4:50
  general consensus actually read a theory last week that the
• 4:54
  writer of the Brutus Anti-Federalist papers is
• 4:56
  actually Alexander Hamilton I think about that Hamilton
• 5:01
  writes, The Federalist Papers are most many of them.
• 5:05
  We also may be wrote the Brutus papers, maybe he was of two
• 5:09
  minds. Anyway, I don't believe it, but
• 5:12
  that's why I say the person wasn't there because obviously,
• 5:15
  if he had been there, he would have come up with this argument
• 5:18
  about the Senate being unfair, he specifically points out.
• 5:22
  Why does Delaware that? Get the same representation
• 5:25
  representation in the Senate is New York or Virginia or the
• 5:28
  other bigger States Pennsylvania.
• 5:32
  Look some of the Anti-Federalist positions are badly flawed and
• 5:36
  this is one of them. He has no understanding of the
• 5:39
  compromise. He doesn't understand the logic
• 5:41
  and he doesn't really understand that.
• 5:43
  Without that compromise, you're not going to get this Governor.
• 5:45
  You're not going to get anything.
• 5:48
  The everybody agrees, we can't continue under the Articles of
• 5:51
  Confederation. So We have to do something and
• 5:58
  the Connecticut Compromise. The Great Compromise of the of
• 6:01
  the Senate is actually one of the more brilliant things that
• 6:04
  the convention came up with Brutus.
• 6:07
  However, doesn't see it that way, and he is not happy with
• 6:12
  this equal representation idea in the Senate.
• 6:16
  He makes it clear that he feels like that is unfair.
• 6:22
  More than unfair though is the Congress the House of
• 6:27
  Representatives. Brutus has major league problems
• 6:32
  with the House of Representatives.
• 6:37
  Number one. He believes that the House of
• 6:41
  Representatives is far, far too small.
• 6:48
  Now. Consider in this, for just a
• 6:51
  moment that today. it doesn't exactly work out to this because
• 6:57
  of State populations and I get that but today There is roughly
• 7:02
  seven hundred and sixty thousand Americans.
• 7:05
  There are roughly six, seven hundred sixty thousand seven
• 7:09
  hundred and sixty-three thousand Americans per congressman.
• 7:14
  Congress then, each each Congressman then representing
• 7:17
  point to three percent of the overall population of America.
• 7:26
  Brutus would have, he would have half solutely, and hap, lectric
• 7:30
  fit over that because in 1787, he was Furious, that the
• 7:34
  proposed Congress was too small already in 1787, it was about
• 7:40
  503, people five hundred three thousand people per Congressman.
• 7:44
  Now again, it's not exact because a different state sizes.
• 7:48
  I get that but each congressperson represented 12
• 7:52
  percent of the population, Now again population today, 355
• 7:58
  million population, 1787 just shy of four million.
• 8:02
  So of course it's going to be bigger.
• 8:04
  But in that era he thought that Congress was too small and if it
• 8:07
  was too small then what is it now?
• 8:12
  The problem he feels with too small of a legislature.
• 8:17
  And remember that Washington General Washington had proposed.
• 8:21
  That it'd be even less not five hundred three thousand, but
• 8:23
  30,000 per Congressman. That was one of the originally
• 8:28
  proposed, amendments that didn't get passed.
• 8:32
  The problem with the legislature being so small Brutus points out
• 8:37
  is that you have a very limited number of people that are in
• 8:39
  control that are in charge of a very limited, number of people
• 8:43
  who are running things. And that he says, opens it up
• 8:50
  for corruption and he uses the word influence, which of course
• 8:57
  is polite language for bribery. He feels with that, few number
• 9:03
  of people. Representing.
• 9:06
  So massive a population that it's it's going to be corrupt.
• 9:13
  It has to be, that's human nature.
• 9:16
  He feels and if he felt that it was that bad at a twelve percent
• 9:21
  representation, imagine what he would think if he got in the
• 9:25
  DeLorean and came to today and saw our Congress today, limited
• 9:30
  to 435 members, each representing approximately 0.23,
• 9:35
  a quarter percent of the population.
• 9:38
  He would have had. well, he would have said, told you so
• 9:47
  because I don't think anybody's gonna argue about corruption and
• 9:51
  bribery in our Congress. The bigger problem that he has,
• 9:56
  though isn't just the size of the, of the Congress.
• 10:01
  There is a bigger problem. There is a huge problem, and
• 10:04
  it's a problem, which reverberates down to this day,
• 10:09
  it's a problem in which people today.
• 10:12
  This is probably one of the things I hear the most from
• 10:15
  people who are Kind of peripherally talking about
• 10:21
  constitutional issues. This American original sin, you
• 10:26
  know? Well, if I'd have been there, I
• 10:28
  would have done it differently. No, you wouldn't have.
• 10:30
  But What we've forgotten what we've missed is that there are
• 10:35
  many Americans in that era who deeply passionately, opposed the
• 10:44
  institution of slavery and Brutus, is it turns out is one
• 10:48
  of them. He writes this about the
• 10:52
  language of the Constitution. Quote, the words are
• 10:57
  representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
• 11:00
  several states, which may be included in this Union.
• 11:04
  According to their respective numbers, which shall be
• 11:06
  determined by adding the whole number of free persons,
• 11:09
  including those bound to service for a term of years and
• 11:12
  excluding Indians, not taxed. Three fifths of all other
• 11:20
  persons. What a strange and unnecessary
• 11:26
  accumulation of words are here. Used to conceal from the public
• 11:31
  eye. What Might Have Been expressed
• 11:33
  in the following concise manner? Representatives are to be
• 11:37
  proportion among the states respectively, respectively.
• 11:40
  According to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting
• 11:43
  them counting five slaves for three free men.
• 11:49
  He doesn't like the language because the language is
• 11:51
  cumbersome, which I'm sure James Madison heard and went, mmm.
• 12:00
  But he's even more concern. About this idea that slaves
• 12:07
  number one are being counted. A number two are being credited
• 12:10
  it 3/5. Now we have talked in the past
• 12:14
  about this Three-Fifths Compromise and we've understood
• 12:17
  a couple of things about it. Number one, it's a direct
• 12:19
  carryover from the Articles of Confederation.
• 12:22
  This is not a new idea. and ultimately in a strange way, it
• 12:30
  has the effect of being Practical in that it
• 12:35
  acknowledges that slaves are in fact human beings.
• 12:40
  They're not full human beings but at least it it begins.
• 12:43
  It cracks that door to acknowledgement.
• 12:47
  If if the doctrine had been that slaves are not people.
• 12:52
  Not human beings then they couldn't even have put the three
• 12:54
  fifths in there, but they did. and the southern states
• 12:59
  recognize the fact that this was going to give them, More
• 13:03
  representation. Which, of course, Brutus sees
• 13:07
  immediately you're going to count these people.
• 13:13
  Who have no rights and no participation in government
• 13:19
  whatsoever. Now, again, it's a different
• 13:22
  time and it's a different era. He's not arguing that they
• 13:24
  should have participation in government.
• 13:26
  What he's saying is, they don't have that and yet you're
• 13:29
  counting them as if they do. Why count slaves at all?
• 13:33
  He said, if they aren't free agents, if they have no Freedom,
• 13:38
  then he goes on to say this. If slaves are only property.
• 13:45
  Why not include the other forms of property when considering how
• 13:48
  to allocate government Representatives.
• 13:51
  Well, you have slaves. I have cattle.
• 13:56
  You have slaves. I have buildings.
• 13:59
  Why doesn't other property get counted this way?
• 14:05
  of course, he recognizes the fact that there's a reason
• 14:09
  behind all this. These men, he states are held in
• 14:13
  bondage in defiance of every idea of benevolence Justice,
• 14:17
  religion, and contrary to all the principles of Liberty which
• 14:22
  have been publicly avowed. In the late Glorious Revolution.
• 14:30
  I don't know that I could have said it better myself.
• 14:32
  I don't know that. Anybody else could have said it
• 14:34
  better slavery as practiced in 1787 was counter to every
• 14:41
  American value that. We said we had And everyone, I
• 14:45
  think knew this including Thomas Jefferson George Washington.
• 14:48
  All understood that it was but again as Jefferson had said to
• 14:53
  Franklin and to John Adams, during the writing of the
• 14:55
  Declaration of Independence, I don't know how to fix it. no one
• 15:00
  knew how to fix it, no one could even travel back in time and say
• 15:06
  You can fix this. Making matters, worse.
• 15:10
  He went on the, these states are to be permitted to continue the
• 15:13
  inhuman traffic of importing slaves, until the year 1808.
• 15:18
  Not only does the Constitution not have a Bill of Rights but it
• 15:22
  perpetuates slavery and that is in violation of every principle
• 15:27
  that we hold to be true. We hold these truths to be
• 15:30
  self-evident that all men are created equal.
• 15:35
  If you're going to acknowledge the fact that these are men, why
• 15:39
  are you counting them as 3/5? Why are you counting them as
• 15:43
  total or if their property? Why are you counting them at
• 15:47
  all? The idea that every American in
• 15:51
  that era and the founding era loved slavery is completely and
• 15:55
  utterly false, we hear it all the time, these days about how,
• 15:59
  you know, Americans did this and did many Americans opposed
• 16:03
  slavery, vehement passionately. But in 1787, no one knew how to
• 16:12
  solve the problem. I don't care how many times you
• 16:16
  tell me differently, but it should have been solved or could
• 16:19
  have been solved or whatever you weren't there.
• 16:22
  We weren't there and that problem could not be solved in
• 16:25
  1787, despite the fact that there were millions of
• 16:28
  Americans, Who opposed it? And the bigger problem is. that
• 16:35
  if you want a union of 13 states, And not 13 independent
• 16:41
  countries. Some of whom have alliances with
• 16:43
  France and some with England and someone Spain and someone
• 16:45
  Portugal battling at each other's throats. you're going to
• 16:50
  have to accept this compromise for the time being You don't get
• 16:55
  a United States if you do anything about it at that point.
• 17:00
  Doesn't make it right. And Brutus is very clear about
• 17:03
  this. Slavery is wrong. and I think
• 17:06
  that if you had, Gone back in time with a polling system and
• 17:12
  and managed to talk to most Americans.
• 17:14
  I think you'd find that most Americans thought that but no
• 17:16
  one knew how to solve it. And in the end, still nobody
• 17:20
  knew how to solve it. We ended up shooting at each
• 17:22
  other and killing hundreds of thousands of people.
• 17:26
  To end, it was the only way to do it.
• 17:31
  Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it a shining star
• 17:36
  in our moment. That's Shining Moment in our
• 17:38
  history. Sorry.
• 17:40
  But it is important that we acknowledge and understand.
• 17:43
  That even in the midst of the Constitutional ratification,
• 17:47
  debates, many Americans opposed the continuation of slavery.
• 17:54
  I think, sometimes we just forget that, we just assume that
• 17:57
  everybody that was there wanted to have slaves, and that is not
• 18:01
  true. Ultimately though Brutus circles
• 18:05
  back to this idea that this legislature that you've
• 18:08
  proposed. It's simply not big enough to
• 18:11
  represent the entire peoples. You look around and all the
• 18:16
  great democracies, all the great republics and in the past and
• 18:19
  the level of representation is very high because as Montesquieu
• 18:24
  said, you want to have engaged, virtuous citizens.
• 18:29
  After the ratification of the Constitution, as they are
• 18:32
  debating, the Bill of Rights, they're writing these first
• 18:36
  amendment's. They're actually, as I said 13,
• 18:38
  only only 11 of them. Ultimately will be ratified, 10
• 18:42
  of them initially, one not until 1992, the 27th Amendment that
• 18:46
  says, Congress doesn't get a pay raise until there's an
• 18:49
  intervening election, which by the way, they ignore, But
• 18:56
  Washington actually proposed one of these amendments.
• 19:01
  At which the level of representation would be
• 19:03
  permanently set at 14 every 300,000 people.
• 19:09
  Now, if you whip out your calculator here and which is
• 19:12
  what I'm doing and you say, okay, let's get the calculator
• 19:16
  up here and we say we have 355 million people /. 30,000, that
• 19:25
  means that a congress limited to that size would have roughly
• 19:30
  11,000. 833 Congress people in it.
• 19:39
  I don't know, I think 435 is far too small.
• 19:44
  I think 435 is ridiculously small. but 11,000 12,000 might
• 19:50
  just be Unwieldy. I'm not sure.
• 19:54
  I'm not sure where the appropriate level is.
• 19:56
  I'm not sure what it could be across that.
• 20:01
  Maybe if we did. Let's see. 355, million divided
• 20:06
  by 100,000. Whoops, that's not right. 355,
• 20:10
  1, 2 3, 1 2, 3 divided by 100,000 people, right?
• 20:15
  That would be. Well, 355, 1, 2 3, 1 2, 3
• 20:21
  divided by 100, 1 2 3. I'd be 3,500.
• 20:27
  Would that be more reasonable? I think Brutus is right, the
• 20:33
  Congress at the level that it set is too small, the level of
• 20:37
  representation in 1787, 12% of the population represented by
• 20:41
  each congressperson. Was too small.
• 20:47
  He was offended by it being so small.
• 20:49
  He was concerned about it being so small because that small is
• 20:52
  subject to bribery and Corruption.
• 20:56
  And today we don't even have a quarter of a percent represented
• 20:59
  by it. And you'd have to look around
• 21:01
  and say, well, he was probably right.
• 21:06
  I don't know what the right level would be, but I know. 435
• 21:09
  is too small and I know 12,000 is probably too big.
• 21:16
  Too expensive, especially with what we pay these people.
• 21:19
  So what's the right level? I don't know this again, where
• 21:24
  the Anti-Federalists failed to look forward and see.
• 21:28
  And the Federalists don't, but they never settle on this
• 21:31
  number. And the biggest problem that we
• 21:33
  have with this 435 number is that we the people never said
• 21:36
  that Congress decided that and has limited itself to foreign 35
• 21:43
  people. Which again.
• 21:48
  If the problem with having a small legislature is that it's
• 21:51
  subject to corruption and influence.
• 21:55
  You would have to say that Brutus was correct.
• 21:59
  He concludes his letter by saying this and I will leave you
• 22:02
  with these words for your consideration.
• 22:05
  No free people on earth. None who have elected persons to
• 22:12
  legislate for them have ever reposed that confidence and so
• 22:20
  small of a number Should Congress be bigger.
• 22:25
  Absolutely, it should be. The Anti-Federalists position
• 22:28
  was correct. Do you think Congress cares?
• 22:34
  I think anybody even has those arguments anymore.
• 22:38
  Sadly, we do not take the time right now.
• 22:41
  Tell the people that matter in your life.
• 22:42
  You love them very much. You'd miss them if they weren't
• 22:44
  there. So don't pass up those
• 22:45
  opportunities. You want to have that regret
• 22:48
  plausibly live. I'm Dave, Bowman will see you
• 22:50
  next time for the Dave Bowman show.